Perhaps too clearly stating your "pro-Russia party" credentials there, tovarich! — ssu

Well, point out the other roots to a negotiated settlement then.

I've also explained several times that the war can also simply go on.

As @Tzeentch and I have explained numerous times, Russia likely does not want to conquer all of Ukraine and would not have the resources to occupy it anyways.

So, even if Ukrainian front lines collapsed (which there are many signs of that about to happen), that would not be a military end to the war, the Russians would move forward but the war would still be on.

If Zelensky can stay in power, post-pone elections further (also called dictatorship), squash any dissent, then it's unlikely the Russians would conquer all of Ukraine anyways, and just holding on to power at the costs of sending even children and women to the front and even if Russia just takes more and more territory (that could be avoided by negotiation) is the best career move for Zelensky and other Ukrainian elites—as long as the West keeps paying for the show to go on then there's literally a money laundering bonanza and it's possible to make a lot of money (called being rational in modern economics) if the war can be transitioned to not even really pretending to compete with the Russians but the country called Ukraine is still there anyways.

If Zelensky can't hold on to power and the Ukrainian government collapses, I guess it's possible the new leadership would want to "fight the war harder" but my guess is that they'd want to just go and accept whatever is necessary to end the war and then try to pick up the pieces.

However, so much money rides on the war continuing and the nationalists seem to have tight control and they know Zelensky is needed to get the money.

The West could stop sending the required money; unclear to me how Zelensky would stay in power, but that doesn't mean the government collapses; the nationalists could take control and continue the war by whatever means they find and would be unlikely to negotiate.

So lot's can happen that isn't a negotiated settlement.

But please, if it's pro-Russian to point out that neither side is willing to compromise (enough needed to get the other side to agree to a peace deal), then explain some realistic compromise that could end the war tomorrow.

Do you have a different pathway to a negotiated settlement that doesn't involve the collapse of the Ukrainian government? And for clarity we're talking about around now, not in a decade.

Yeah, why didn't my country and my grandparents generation accept the wisdom of not fighting back in WW2 and essentially just accept whatever the Russians want? — ssu

Again, a pointless straw man. My position is that fighting back is useful in this sort of situation, to arrest the initial invasion and then use the leverage of potential further fighting (even potential further irrational fighting) to negotiate a peace.

Finland continuously negotiates with the Soviets to find a compromise and the end result is agreeing to cede over 20% of Finnish territory to the Soviets and pay the Soviets for the cost to the Soviets of invading Finland: the exact opposite logic compared to what is proposed here, the Western media and Western social media generally speaking.

The Finnish leaders do not walk away from the negotiation table (negotiation is near continuous through the whole conflict), do not publicly vow to reclaim all the lost territory and make that the only acceptable standard, do not publicly call Stalin evil and demand the world get rid of him, and do not make laughably stupid conditions for negotiation such as the Soviets much remove all their forces from Finnish territory first, then a negotiation can happen.

The analogy to Finland simply illustrates all the terrible decisions Zelensky makes and why they aren't realistic and a tough situation requires tough choices, which the Finns make in order to end the war, save lives, and preserve as much territory as they practically can given unfavourable circumstances.

The Finns follow common sense pragmatic realism of what is attainable.

Furthermore, the Finnish geography lends itself to one particular point that is easier for a smaller force to defend itself against a larger force, the Mannerheim Line, and so they fall back to where the defender has the advantage rather than vow to fight for every inch.

Oh yes, they were cry-babies. — ssu

Again, no one here as far as I know is Ukrainian and currently fighting.

The cost of the war is immense in terms of lives lost or mutilated or traumatized or upended, having no justification for the fighting more sophisticated than "waaaah, Putin!" is just cry baby logic.

We discussed at length at the start of the war and both agreed that based on the information available that Ukraine had essentially no prospects of retaking the territory and winning in military terms.

From this agreed position, I concluded that Ukraine should use the leverage (that includes even the small chance it had in 2022 of routing the Russian forces, before Russia mobilized significantly more troops) to negotiate a peace, that would require compromise, which the Russian proposal seemed to adequate and preferable to more war with extremely poor prospects.

You conclude that maybe Ukrainian generals know something we don't and will bring out some total surprise. Presumably then, if Ukrainian generals did not in fact know something we don't, which seems to be the case, then it would follow from your position back then that deciding to fight was not a good decision. You did agree once upon a time that military objectives should be feasible to accomplish and lives not wasted for essentially fantastical wishful thinking.

They want reparations:

Deputy Minister of Justice Irina Mudra: If Russia thinks that it will sign a settlement agreement without reparations - will not sign. Ukraine will never go for it
^{— Tatiana Bodnia · Censor.NET · Nov 24, 2023}

Go for it. (I don't think the Kremlin has insurance coverage, it'll be out of pocket. :D)

The recent move of sending scores of asylum seekers (on bicycles) to border posts (in the snow), Russia → Finland, isn't new. Maybe the Kremlin is testing humanitarian responses, maybe attempting to plant agents, maybe exporting "undesirables", ... In case of anything that can be perceived as a negative reaction, it's "anti-humanitarian", "look, bad evil government", "Nazistas", ... Old story, cumulative trust-erosion, mala fide. Another Kremlin character problem, ?

Something analogous has happened further south, Russia → Ukraine, for some time, except on a larger scale, and with given military-political objectives. Maybe Girkin admitting so was another reason for him falling out of favor with the Kremlin (resembling how the Cosa Nostra works).

Russian propagandists have created a nice picture. This is what the current routes from St. Petersburg to Helsinki look like. (Anton Gerashchenko · Nov 26, 2023)

Old story, cumulative trust-erosion, mala fide. Another Kremlin character problem, ↪ssu? — jorndoe

Lol. Funny video, made it quite clear what they want.

It's the typical mischief Russia will do. We are used to it, they do it all the time. A Great Power has to flex it's muscles and put in line, right? :smile:

You see, we "crybabies" start our relations with other countries with following international treaties and so on. But for Russia anything there is in foreign is up to be something that one can pressure with. So it can be asylum seekers, trucks even custody battles between parents.

The best thing is that now in NATO people can talk about Russia openly. Basically the Cold War Finlandization ended when Russia attack Ukraine last year. It was a real political and cultural transformation.

A fairly transparent fig-leaf, since you ascribe the same argumentation to Zelensky and the rest of the Ukrainian leadership. — Echarmion

So you go from countering the cry-baby argument with the fact tough guys with tattoos are on the front lines, to countering my pointing out that the average Ukrainian soldier I very much doubt use the same logic ... to bringing up the fact Zelensky uses the cry baby logic.

Extremely poor rebuttal.

First, is Zelensky fighting on the front line with real skin in the game?

No, Zelensky doesn't even fit the mythological tough guy Ukrainian Azov-type soldier valiantly fighting to defend the motherland

More importantly, Zelensky's primary role is selling the West on the war, so it's no surprise what he sells the West is what the West is buying.

To the extent ordinary Ukrainians also use cry-baby logic of directly connecting complaints about the world to actions that do not realistically have a chance to resolve those complaints, I have not problem calling cry-babies as well.

Even more important, Zelensky is in a position to lie to the Ukrainian people, and, indeed, when he does it's immediately justified here and elsewhere as necessary propaganda for both Ukrainian and Western moral purposes.

So if Ukrainians did think the effort was realistic, well they may think that because they were lied to and all critical media was banned and they risk also being extra-judicially executed if they don't seem loyal enough to the cause (such as the Ukrainian negotiator that was summarily executed without trial and without any evidence ever being presented).

We outside Ukraine do not have such an excuse.

Now, insofar as any Ukrainian does make the same cry-baby arguments, which perhaps some do, I have zero problem calling them likewise cry-babies, no matter how many tats, wounds, cigars and eye-patches they maybe sporting.

Most importantly, however, Zelensky is being paid handsomely for his services of shepherding Ukrainians youth, and old, to the front lines. His best friends just bought 75 million worth of yachts for example, to add to his collection of European and African property.

So, you can't call someone a cry-baby if they are making bank with their disingenuous rhetoric. That's called being an economically rational agent; even tougher than the toughest Azov storm trooper, to launder money during a war while sending hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens to their trauma, mutilation and death. You honestly need to be as hard as what neutron stars are made of, which is the exact opposite of being a cry baby.

The label is only appropriate to people, whether Ukrainian or not, who genuinely believe you can jump straight from a complaint about the world directly to whatever action seems to emotionally satisfy that complain.

For example, jumping straight from "waaahhhh, Russia invaded Ukraine" to the conclusion that directly emotionally satisfies that complaint, which is someone (else) should go kill Russians then!!

I get it, the invasion rouses anger and promoting Ukrainian fighting back without thinking things through satiates that anger. Indeed, the less thought that goes into the more the anger is satiated. The guy who gets angry and immediately throws over a table and hits his girl friend in the face is far more emotionally satiated in the moment than the guy who contemplates life, the table, the girl friend, where all this is going and what everything means, moral duties and the divine light, for a few days and then throws over the table and hits his girl friend in the face ... or, you know, doesn't do that because he's thought it through and although it would satiate his anger it would not serve his soul.

The same with the war. Rebuking those that want to think things through, such as my question in March 2022 to pro-Zelenskyites on this very forum of how exactly do they think they can win which just got cry-baby responses of "they're defending their homeland!!" and "they want to fight!" etc., satiates a deep anger, and I get it, but the consequences of not thinking through decisions in a war are far higher than the tough Azov Ukrainian soldier guy taking his anger out on his table and girl friend when he gets back from the front; anger that is certainly legitimate in itself if many of his comrades are now dead.

However, what is even worse than the above, is not only jumping from a dissatisfaction about the world directly to supporting the actions that most directly address that emotion (though not actually going yourself, just satisfied others are forced to do so) is then jumping again without thought or justification from that first jump to an entirely new leap to Europe and NATO should supply weapons indefinitely (although not too much, though not too little!! ... but just the right amount that they lose anyways).

I say ... hol'up, let's think this through, ask in March 2022 if anyone even has any idea how Ukraine could "win", whatever definition is proposed for that, since if they can't win then clearly that needs to inform decisions about the war. Simply doesn't matter how much people complain, people whine, people hate on Putin and try to cancel him like some YouTuber that says things the establishment doesn't like, if Ukraine can't win then supporting the attempt will get many, many, many Ukrainians killed for nothing. If they can't win then their only realistic option is to use the leverage that they could fight to the end, no matter irrationally, but they are also willing to strike a compromise to avoid that.

If they can't win, then Europe and NATO should (if they care about Ukrainian lives) support a feasible negotiation strategy, which can certainly involve sending arms to support the negotiation process, but would also entail things like talking to Russia (like the West talks to Hamas, because they care about Israel and a deal may at some point be what Israel needs, once they too have satiated their anger they can appreciate cooler heads did the diplomatic work for them), but more importantly using their economic leverage to apply additional pressure on Russia to make more concessions in a peace settlement.

Now, you seem to have turned not-thinking-things-through into what you seem to believe is some clever art form.

It's neither clever nor moral. Sit down and think of everyone who has suffered and died in this war and really contemplate the very real possibility that Ukraine cannot win in the war it was insisting it could, and then review again in your mind Zelensky's choice to repudiate negotiations, make them more difficult to restart according to your own explanation of "making positions in serious negotiations public is a bad idea".

People here could have proposed a way Ukraine could "win" on the battlefield; no one could, yet Zelensky proponents would insist supporting the war was the right thing to do and Ukrainians being prevented from leaving Ukraine is simply "common sense", that of course critical media must be banned, opposition political parties banned, and so on etc.

I simply ask the question of how Ukraine can even potentially win, and the only response I get is this cry-baby logic that reality doesn't matter, thinking things through doesn't matter, how many people will die in these military campaigns don't matter, consequences to Ukraine's population and economy doesn't matter, nor consequences on the world food supply, potentially escalating to WWIII, feeling nuclear proliferation etc. all doesn't matter.

All these questions didn't matter before 2022 when only "ethnic Russians" were dying in the Donbas and Russia would inevitably invade, and none of the questions matter while people see this disaster unfold, as long as they can compress and contain all their emotions into "waaahhhh Putin".

And as for regular Ukrainians, this simplistic model that they are all just valiantly rushing to the front to defend Ukraine! and happy to lay down their lives on principle, is completely stupid. Most Ukrainians fighting are forced into service, so they are not volunteers and if criticizing the war was not a crime that can additionally get you killed in Ukraine, we may hear more diverse views from Ukraine on whether it was a good idea to refuse the Russian's offer and whether it always made perfect sense to them to fight for "the right to join NATO" and other simplistic thought terminating clichés.

Which to remind everyone are:

A thought-terminating cliché (also known as a semantic stop-sign, a thought-stopper, bumper sticker logic, or cliché thinking) is a form of loaded language, often passing as folk wisdom, intended to end an argument and quell cognitive dissonance.[1][2][3] Its function is to stop an argument from proceeding further, ending the debate with a cliché rather than a point.[1] Some such clichés are not inherently terminating; they only become so when used to intentionally dismiss dissent or justify fallacious logic. — Thought-terminating cliché

"Fighting for the right to join NATO" manages to an even stupider thought-terminating cliché as "support the troops".

His best friends just bought 75 million worth of yachts for example, to add to his collection of European and African property. — boethius

A false claim invented by russian propaganda. You're staying current on that front I see.

People here could have proposed a way Ukraine could "win" on the battlefield; no one could — boethius

You not listening isn't the same as there not being an argument. You don't care to entertain any notion that goes against your fixed assumptions, but that is your problem.

Your incessant repetition of how it's impossible for Ukraine to win is not getting any more convincing, especially since you're still unable to even conceive of Ukrainian geopolitical interests.

And as for regular Ukrainians, this simplistic model that they are all just valiantly rushing to the front to defend Ukraine! and happy to lay down their lives on principle, is completely stupid. — boethius

Which only proves that you're unable to have an intellectually honest discussion.

A false claim invented by russian propaganda. You're staying current on that front I see. — Echarmion

The Pandora papers, leaked to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and shared with the Guardian as part of a global investigation however, suggest Zelenskiy is rather similar to his predecessors.

The leaked documents suggest he had – or has – a previously undisclosed stake in an offshore company, which he appears to have secretly transferred to a friend weeks before winning the presidential vote. — The Guardian

Zelensky getting caught laundering money is nothing new, are you calling this Guardian article, the Pandora Papers and ICIJ Russian propaganda?

For me, if you get caught having offshore accounts while accusing your political opponents of the practice, as explained by The Guardian:

On the campaign trail, Zelenskiy pledged to clean up Ukraine’s oligarch-dominated ruling system. And he railed against politicians such as the wealthy incumbent Petro Poroshenko who hid their assets offshore. The message worked. Zelenskiy won 73% of the vote and now sits in a cavernous office in the capital, Kyiv, decorated with gilded stucco ceilings. Last month, he held talks with Joe Biden in the Oval Office. — The Guardian

As with the Nazi's in Ukraine, there is plenty of reporting by Wester media outlets on Zelensky's corrupt practices ... which at that time no one had gotten the memo that he was a war hero and untouchable.

But if you are claiming The Guardian article is also Russian propaganda then I'll at least concede your position is coherent. Otherwise why would we assume new allegations of the same is Russian propaganda? Simply because Zelensky created that incredible weakness before the war ... but is totally clean now, you swear it?

You not listening isn't the same as there not being an argument. You don't care to entertain any notion that goes against your fixed assumptions, but that is your problem.

Your incessant repetition of how it's impossible for Ukraine to win is not getting any more convincing, especially since you're still unable to even conceive of Ukrainian geopolitical interests. — Echarmion

If everything hinges on Ukraine winning, then I agree that we'll just get back to this point.

But then at least concede that if Ukraine doesn't win, and turns out that was obvious, and turns out the West didn't even make an attempt to provide the weapons that would be needed to have a chance, that my arguments do follow from such a state of affairs.

We can wait and see if you prefer.

Which only proves that you're unable to have an intellectually honest discussion. — Echarmion

Honesty would be taking into account more Ukrainians fighting do not do so voluntarily than volunteer, as well as essentially the entire male population being unable to leave Ukraine, and therefore the "Ukrainian soldiers' will to fight" is not an argument as it is not willing for most cases.

, still going on about the Nazi stuff, eh? :)

I guess I can re-repeat. Nah, Ukraine still isn't ruled by a Nazi regime; those claims are straight from the Kremlin's propaganda machine (don't echo them). (Also Apr 25, 2022 - Dec 20, 2022 - Aug 2, 2023.) There have been quality elections in Ukraine since 2014. Ukraine has made some progress towards fulfilling the EU's requirements. That's progress, where we've seen Russian regress instead, it's been set out in some detail throughout the thread (you may blame the Kremlin). Progress good, regress bad. Kyiv said "No" as did the UN.

That being said, you might argue that Ukraine should stop, make concessions, hope for the best.

Should South Korea capitulate to North Korea, "or else"? I don't think laying waste to North Korea is an option (shouldn't be). — Nov 26, 2023

It's not 2014 Crimea. Putin's decision has become costly. What might be next on his (public) agenda? — Nov 26, 2023

Nah, Ukraine still isn't ruled by a Nazi regime; those claims are straight from the Kremlin's propaganda machine (don't echo them). — jorndoe

Oh he will echo them.

How else would we be on page 535 here?

Zelensky getting caught laundering money is nothing new, — boethius

Money laundering? Perhaps you should look at a dictionary first. You're parroting propaganda to the point of embarrassment.

are you calling this Guardian article, the Pandora Papers and ICIJ Russian propaganda? — boethius

Another strawman.

Otherwise why would we assume new allegations of the same is Russian propaganda? — boethius

Claims need to be supported by evidence.

Honesty would be taking into account more Ukrainians fighting do not do so voluntarily than volunteer, — boethius

And do you have evidence for this or are you once again simply making up stuff as you go along?

and therefore the "Ukrainian soldiers' will to fight" is not an argument as it is not willing for most cases — boethius

Again, no evidence and also bad logic.

You're a master at closing the door to communication yourself. Both you and Bobo have had closed doors several pages ago and have just been talking to a screen and projected caricature of each other. And thus really only talking with one's self. — Vaskane

A fair assessment, but some effort to expose the dishonesty and propaganda seems warranted.

he will echo them — ssu

It's plain false (which has been pointed out already), so it's a bit puzzling. Oh well. Alternate world type stuff.
The Kremlin circle has tried who-knows-what, including attempting to sow hostility between Poland and Ukraine - Aug 2, 2023 - Sep 22, 2023.
Going over the records renders a fascinating picture ("cumulative trust-erosion, mala fide").

A fair assessment, but some effort to expose the dishonesty and propaganda seems warranted. — Echarmion

What dishonesty and propaganda are you talking about?

People like Mearsheimer and Sachs are dishonest or Kremlin propagandists to you?

What dishonesty and propaganda are you talking about?

People like Mearsheimer and Sachs are dishonest or Kremlin propagandists to you? — Tzeentch

As should be clear from the context, I'm talking about @boethius filling their posts with lines from russian propaganda and making factual claims that are - at best - dead reckoning.

I think Mearsheimer's views have been discussed. His 2014 analysis seemed fine to me, if narrowly concerned only with the US' geopolitical interests as he sees it. His more recent statements seem much less reasonable.

If we're talking about Jeffrey Sachs then yes, he seems to have turned himself into a propagandist, though perhaps this is incidental to some other conviction he holds.

A-ha. So when western sources state something you dislike they can also be hand-waved as propaganda?

Seymour Hersh - a propagandist too I assume?

Noam Chomsky - a propagandist, obviously.

Ray McGovern - propagandist.

etc. etc.

Nevermind the track record of these folks. Winning Pulitzer prices, being invited at the UN to speak, etc. That's just the typical stuff propagandists do. :nerd:

As if Heidegger couldn't do pro-Nazi propaganda, Foucault couldn't do pro-Islamist propaganda, and Sartre couldn't do pro-Maoist propaganda, because they are considered among the greatest philosophers of the 20th century.

I don't really care how you justify it to yourselves. But it's good to know that the extent of the argument doesn't go beyond "Everyone who disagrees with me is a propagandist." :lol:

A-ha. So when western sources state something you dislike they can also be hand-waved as propaganda?

Seymour Hersh - a propagandist too I assume?

Noam Chomsky - a propagandist, obviously.

Ray McGovern - propagandist. — Tzeentch

Of the people you mentioned, only Hersh and Sachs can be considered "sources". The rest are analysts. As such we can consider their arguments, but these should stand on their own.

As for Sachs credibility as a source, all he offers is his own hearsay, which cannot be corroborated any further. As such all that can be done is look at his record, which isn't great. His activity in recent years was notably focused on defending China and Russia.

Hersh I'm willing to give a lot more credit. But Hersh also offers relatively little of substance. He claims that the US destroyed the Nord Stream Pipelines. His evidence there doesn't seem very good, but I don't discount the possibility.

He claims Ukraine's counteroffensive was a disastrous failure that thoroughly demoralised the army. Again plausible, given the evidence we have, though perhaps hyperbolic. He concludes from this that the war is over and Putin has won. These conclusions, as far as I can tell, are his personal opinion that seems rather fanciful.

That the war should be over after just a single failed Ukrainian campaign seems very unlikely given historical evidence and the size of Ukraine and it's military. And that the status quo, even if we imagine it becoming permanent, resembles anything like a russian victory, is begging the question of just what victory is supposed to mean. Is taking territory the sole defining factor here?

Anyways Hersh has lately been in the habit of doubling down when questioned. A common enough trait of old men with some claim to fame. They're not always wrong in this, but also not always right.

Alternate world type stuff. — jorndoe

Exactly. Especially the nazi stuff.

, do you think it's for the home audience?
They're already under some impressive censorship/filtering/control/suppression; perhaps they can rile them up or scare them. They've tossed the "Nazi" word around some, not just regarding Ukraine.

Alternate world type stuff. — jorndoe

Exactly. Especially the nazi stuff. — ssu

They've tossed the "Nazi" word around some, not just regarding Ukraine. — jorndoe

This is called "echoing" each other without making any argument of any kind, nor contending with the evidence that supports the claim you complain about ... all of which comes from the Western media:

As I posted when this subject first came up, posted March 21st, 2022.

Please, watch the videos and then explain how "there are no Nazi's in Ukraine" ... or "if they are they aren't a problem" or "well, maybe they are a problem, but not a big problem" or "they were Nazi!! but since rebranded" or my favourite (aired by the BBC no less) "yes, they are 'extreme nationalists' but they are good fighters".

↪Olivier5

The backlash is people getting into severe cognitive dissonance which disrupts the war horny trance like state they were in previously, when they encounter the fact the "neo-Nazi" problem isn't some fringe skinheads in some seedy bar, but a whole institution.

Which, please pay attention to the "black sun" which doesn't even have any apologist "it's just a rune" or "ancient Sanskrit symbol" whatever explanation, but literally created by the SS for the SS.
— boethius

And also discover, at least the US and Canada (... maybe not other NATO members like Germany, who are the experts on neo-Nazi's after all and arbitrate whether they exist or not in today's media landscape) exposed to be breaking their own laws, which was military aid was contingent on irregular forces not doing any fighting or getting any weapons or ammunition ... which journalists could just go debunk in like, a single day's investigation?



And discover ... that when people talk about this problem going back to 2014 ... there's times and BBC reportings on this very thing:

January First, is one of the most important days in their callender. It marks the birth of Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Ukrainian partisan forces during the second world war.

The rally was organized by the far right Svoboda Party. Protests marched amidst a river of torches, with signs saying "Ukraine above all else".

But for many in Ukraine and abroad, Bandera's legacy is controversial. His group, the organization of Ukrainian Nationalists sided with Nazi German forces [but fortunately we have modern Germany to tell us there's no connection!] before breaking with them later in the war. Western Historians also say that his followers carried out massacres of Polish and Jewish civilians.

[... interview with a guy explaining the importance of Stepan Bandera's birthday party ]

Ukraine is a deeply divided country, however, and many in its East and South consider the party to be extremist. Many observers say rallies like today's torch light march only add to this division [really?!?! you don't say...]. — BBC

Or discover this one which interviews the FBI talking about these terrorists training with Azov ... but ... wait, "the war on terror" doesn't extend to white terrorists training "oversees".

And has the quote (recorded on video) from one of the recruiters:

We're Aryans, and we will rise again — totally not a neo-Nazi, according to the German government

But ... the president is Jewish and is allied with these forces, who don't even hate Jews all that much! So obviously you can have Nazi's if their friendly Nazi's (to your side).



This one's just adorable.



If I remember correctly, the main counter argument was that "there are Nazi's everywhere" ... I ask from where else is there similar evidence of so many Nazi's causing such big problems ... nada.

Then it was "ok, there are Nazi's, maybe more than elsewhere, but there aren't 'enough' Nazi's to justify an invasion".

To which my simply question "well, how many Nazi's would be too many Nazi's with too much power and influence that would justify an invasion to denazify said Nazis?"

Is never answered, but I'm simply labeled a pro-Putinist for simply asking the question. It should be simple to follow up an argument that contains the word "not enough" to explain what "not-enough" means. It's not my argument.

Now, for people who want to live in the real world, rather than the entirely fake world created by the mainstream media to comfort the mendacious, why are the Nazi's in Ukraine an obvious problem:

First, that there are Nazi's in Ukraine and they were the primary force fighting the separatists is a problem because they are out of control and want more war and more fighting. So if you do have some negotiation process to try to end the war anytime between 2014 and 2022, the Nazi's aren't going to like that, and if they have plenty of weapons (courtesy of the West) they can use violence to get their way. Paramilitary groups with a fanatical ideology are simply a problem to legitimate political process.

Second, even assuming one of the cry-babies present takes the courage to explain how we'd evaluate "not enough Nazis" to make the distinction with "enough Nazis", the Nazis are clearly visible enough, and documented well by our own Western media (no one got the memo back then that the sun shined out of these Nazis asses) that these Nazis and these clear reports about the Nazis are not going to go down well with Russians. Russians aren't going to split hairs over whether an obvious Nazi symbol is actually "a Nordic rune!" and the association with Naziism in a group that also has Swastikas tats as well, is just coincidence! Russians will obviously be pissed, and so tolerating these Nazi groups and arming them (as the reporting above demonstrates without ambiguity) provides an amazing casus belli for a Russian invasion and strong motivations to fight. Why this matters is not only did Western policy contribute to reasons for the war and contribute to forces that frustrate any peace process, but the motivation is an easy one for any Russian.

Rewriting history after the war begins to conveniently memory hole or rebrand the Nazis leads directly to underestimating, to use NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg word, the Russian motivation to fight.

It's only in the made-up world of Western media that it made any sense at all to go around saying that the "Russian soldiers don't know why they are fighting" and are unmotivated and have low morale and they'll just completely collapse.

Anyone who knows anything about Russian history and then considers this situation where literal Nazis, both proud and openly advocating the destruction of Russia, are shelling ethnic-Russian civilians in the Donbas for 8 years, would not conclude that the Russians would be unmotivated to teach these Nazis a lesson in proper estimation of an opponents strength.

The Nazis were a significant problem and a major contribution to the war, major obstacle to any peace process, and essential to understanding many aspects of the war, such as focus on Mariupol for the Russians at the start of the war.

And the Nazis are causing similar problems to this day.

They may very well be a small percentage of Ukrainian society (who voted twice overwhelmingly for the candidate who promised to bring peace; Zelensky even promised to go on his knees to Moscow to get peace), but when a small group of fanatics get a bunch of arms, NATO training, and key positions in government, the skies the limit (except if your airforce was blown up).

Never underestimate the power of a small group of committed people to change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has. — Margaret Mead.

Now, feel free or or or to actually go through the above videos and explain why the Nazis in those videos aren't a problem.

If the straight up denialism is immediately dropped (as the other times we've gotten to the exact same deniliasm and I repost the exact same evidence) and the argument is once again "ok, there are some Nazis, concerning stuff, but not enough Nazis!!"

Well, again, what would be enough?

It's a simple question, and it's not my theory that there aren't "enough Nazis" to justify an invasion. I'm just asking the question and pointing out that letting the Nazis in Ukraine grow in power to the point they are a problem has a word for it ... a word we keep hearing from Western media ... what was it ... ah yes, "appeasement".

But go ahead, explain this political theory that establishes the bar of "enough Nazis" and explain why we aren't there yet.

Money laundering? Perhaps you should look at a dictionary first. You're parroting propaganda to the point of embarrassment. — Echarmion

When you transfer an asset into someone else's name to act as a front man in order to avoid legal scrutiny (for example because you're about to be the President of a country), that's already fraud. Transferring an asset in a fraudulent way to avoid accountability is already in itself money laundering.

We don't need more details about what these offshore accounts were used for and the context of the asset transfer, 1 week before assuming office, makes any argument that moving these shares was just a "gift to a friend" impossible to make. But go ahead and make it.

I don't personally need more evidence that Zelensky is corrupt and knows that the proposal of sending hundreds of billions of dollars Ukraine's way he can take a little off the top.

But even if you want to just believe Zelensky is the diamond in the rough and straight as an arrow, my argument applies not simply to Zelensky but all the Ukrainian elites and decision makers, they will all stand to benefit from billions of dollars structured in the form of a slush fund being sent to Ukraine, and Zelensky himself complains about corruption, even in high places.

My point is the money is a de facto bribe to everyone with any sort of power in Ukraine. Zelensky is obviously well positioned to take advantage with his offshore dealings and proven front men for laundering money, and has since chastised any inquiry into the matter, but if you want to believe Zelensky setup secret offshore accounts and holding companies just to "tempt himself" to prove is moral and assetic solidity, it doesn't really change my argument much consider Zelensky himself complains about corruption in Ukrainian politics and governance. Plenty of people in Ukraine are making bank off the war and have a motivation to see it continue, and that is a what corporate people call a "moral hazard".

Another strawman. — Echarmion

What straw man? My argument is that if you're caught laundering money once (especially if you've been criticizing your political opponents of that exact thing, calling it corrupt, without disclosing you also are doing that thing) you shouldn't get much.

The story about the yachts has actual evidence provided, I have not seen anyone actually explain what's fabricated about the evidence or contradicting claims from the other parties involved.

Exclusive: Wife of Ukraine president-elect got penthouse bargain from tycoon

The wife of Ukrainian president-elect Volodymyr Zelenskiy bought a luxury apartment for less than half the market rate from business tycoon Oleksandr Buryak, according to official income and property records.

Zelenskiy, a comedian and TV star with no political experience, won the April 21 presidential election after campaigning as someone who stands apart from the wealthy elite that dominates Ukrainian business ...
— 2019, Reuters

Again, before the war and before the memo went out that Zelensky is basically a saint now, the most reputable news agencies in the world had zero problem Reporting on and calling out Zelensky corruption.

So again, when the West offers Zelensky billions of dollars structured as a slush fund without any traceability to do their policy rather than accept a negotiated settlement (or even continue to negotiate "just in case" but rather repudiate entirely negotiations), it is not only a de facto bribe but the West knows Zelensky is "a player" who "does business" that way.

And do you have evidence for this or are you once again simply making up stuff as you go along? — Echarmion

In any discussion there are facts that people who follow the issue should know.

Before the war Ukraine had 250 000 soldiers about and then once the war starts mobilizes over 800 000 total soldiers. The majority of these are not volunteers.

There were a reported total of 250,800 personnel in the Armed Forces in 2015.[64] In July 2022, Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov stated that the Armed Forces had an active strength of 700,000; Reznikov also mentioned that with the Border Guard, National Guard, and police added, the total comes to around one million. — Armed Forces of Ukraine - Wikipedia

Additional fact for you (which should be common knowledge to anyone following the war but I'm happy to spoon feed you basic facts as it makes you ignorant, out of your depth and even more bad faith):

Otherwise why would we assume new allegations of the same is Russian propaganda?
— boethius

Claims need to be supported by evidence. — Echarmion

You do not need supporting evidence for this. If you've been caught money laundering by making a best friend a front man for offshore assets and taking bribes through your wife, you don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore. If papers show up purporting to show 75 Million yacht purchases that's credible until proven otherwise as far as I'm concerned.

But only because I don't like corrupt politicians and money launderers.

If you do like them and want to go out to bat for organized crime, by all means explain this philosophy and why this particular evidence (in the context that Zelensky has done this kind of crime) is not credible.

Evidence shows up that supports a claim, making an accusation that someone has done again crime he's already done: it's credible until proven otherwise. No one (that isn't corrupt) has the mental effort resources to operate otherwise.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy signed decree 24.02.2022 № 64/2022 "On the imposition of martial law in Ukraine" on general mobilization in the country, which would commence on 25 February for a period of 90 days, calling up conscripts and reservists; all male Ukrainian citizens aged 18 to 60 were prohibited from travelling abroad, unless they could provide documents that they fulfilled specified conditions for exemption. — Mobilization in Ukraine

If you want to live in a world where taking away nearly half the population's freedom of movement and then calling up conscripts and reservists, was simply to "top things off" and not really needed because Ukraine had and still has hundreds of thousands of volunteers, I guess go ahead. Obviously exact mobilization numbers will be "state secrets" so we'll only have a clear idea of exact numbers after the war.

Again, no evidence and also bad logic. — Echarmion

The bad argument without evidence is the idea that there needs be no justification for the war, no justification for Europe and NATO's financing and arming of the war, because "Ukrainians want to fight", an argument that has appeared numerous times in this forum.

You're incarnation is to rebut the fact that simply supporting a war without any theory of victory is cry-baby logic ... Ukrainians on the front aren't cry-babies and want to fight!

This is the position that has zero evidence. You provide zero evidence that most Ukrainians fighting want to fight and the law banning Ukrainians from leaving the country was totally unnecessary and superfluous because Ukrainians want to fight! at least for the most part, so there wouldn't a problem with recruitment.

You make claims and provide zero evidence and is also bad logic. That Ukrainians want to fight without a theory of victory does not actually rebut that being cry-baby logic.

The only reason I rebutted your claim that Ukrainians want to fight for Zelensky's various cry-baby statements, is because I honestly don't think it's true. A large majority of Ukrainians voted for the peace candidate twice, so I think it stands to reason most Ukrainians knew the dangers of continuing the war in the Donbas (which obviously assumes giving up claim to Crimea as well), and simply because Zelensky starts promising he'll take back all the Donbas and all Crimea in the cry-baby framework of reasoning, I honestly don't think most Ukrainians were convinced that was feasible.

Transferring an asset in a fraudulent way to avoid accountability is already in itself money laundering. — boethius

No it's not.

I don't personally need more evidence that Zelensky is corrupt and knows that the proposal of sending hundreds of billions of dollars Ukraine's way he can take a little off the top. — boethius

Obviously you don't.

and that is a what corporate people call a "moral hazard". — boethius

And this "moral hazard" is here supposed to stand in for evidence and an argument, but I don't accept such a transparent shifting of goalposts.

The story about the yachts has actual evidence provided — boethius

You did not provide any. I'm not about to go trawl the web to find some reference that might prove your point.

So again, when the West offers Zelensky billions of dollars structured as a slush fund without any traceability to do their policy rather than accept a negotiated settlement (or even continue to negotiate "just in case" but rather repudiate entirely negotiations), it is not only a de facto bribe but the West knows Zelensky is "a player" who "does business" that way. — boethius

Just piling on spurius logic onto bullshit claims. The aid is not "set up as a slush fund", since most of it is material in nature. "Zelensky is corrupt therefore money flowing to Ukraine is a bribe for Zelensky" is entirely non sequitur and a laughably bad attempt to make on a philosophy forum of all places.

Before the war Ukraine had 250 000 soldiers about and then once the war starts mobilizes over 800 000 total soldiers. The majority of these are not volunteers. — boethius

You don't know that, and in any event your claim was that they "are not fighting voluntarily" which is different from being formally a volunteer. You can fight voluntarily as a draftee.

You do not need supporting evidence for this. — boethius

Oh I do.

If papers show up purporting to show 75 Million yacht purchases that's credible until proven otherwise as far as I'm concerned. — boethius

What papers? Where?

But only because I don't like corrupt politicians and money launderers. — boethius

Unless they're russian no doubt.

The bad argument without evidence is the idea that there needs be no justification for the war, no justification for Europe and NATO's financing and arming of the war, because "Ukrainians want to fight", an argument that has appeared numerous times in this forum. — boethius

I don't particularly care what you think happened numerous times on the forum. You could quote a specific instance of this that you want to adress but I suspect you cannot.

You're incarnation is to rebut the fact that simply supporting a war without any theory of victory is cry-baby logic ... Ukrainians on the front aren't cry-babies and want to fight! — boethius

This is of course utter nonsense, but I realize you feel unable to deal with the actual argument and so make up your own.

This is the position that has zero evidence. You provide zero evidence that most Ukrainians fighting want to fight and the law banning Ukrainians from leaving the country was totally unnecessary and superfluous because Ukrainians want to fight! at least for the most part, so there wouldn't a problem with recruitment. — boethius

I don't need to provide evidence for claims you make up.

The only reason I rebutted your claim that Ukrainians want to fight for Zelensky's various cry-baby statements, is because I honestly don't think it's true. — boethius

If you want to rebut a claim, just thinking it's not true isn't enough.

You're a master at closing the door to communication yourself. Both you and Bobo have had closed doors several pages ago and have just been talking to a screen and projected caricature of each other. And thus really only talking with one's self. — Vaskane

This is really not the case, I am happy to entertain @Echarmion's arguments.

And we're not talking past each other but have agreed on the essential point that Zelensky was a moron to repudiate negotiations:

Actual offers in serious diplomatic negotiations are not made public, much less when actual lifes are at stake. Sure Ukraine could publish the offers made, but then why would we believe Ukraine was telling the full truth, and any such move could jeopardize further negotiations — Echarmion

And @Echarmion also agreed that Ukraine's leverage was higher before compared to now, just wants to equivocate on exactly which point was the maximum.

For me it doesn't really matter, as Zelensky repudiates negotiations making his position at the time that Russia withdrawing from all of Ukraine was a precondition to even negotiate again, and in @Echarmion's own words that "such move could jeopardize further negotiations".

This is the main issue of contention, which @Echarmion clearly understand perfectly fine.

He simply doesn't want to admit it, so now has retreated into the wishful thinking that Ukraine will pull off some incredible turn around on the battlefield.

Obviously, that implies that my main points are correct if that doesn't happen, main points being:

1. Ukraine should have pledged neutrality in a negotiation, of course trying to get the best deal for doing so possible (losing a war is not a preferable option in anycase)

2. Zelensky should have repudiated negotiations and make public promises and commitments that would "jeopardize further negotiations".

3. Ukraine had and has little chance of winning the war in any military sense.

4. NATO has not even made a credible effort to even have a good crack at it (fearing nuclear escalation and getting Finland and Sweden into NATO, selling gas to Europe, lot's of funds to arms suppliers, maybe even damaging the Russians a bit, who knows, all make the war worth it without victory).

And these last two points @Echarmion also seems to agree with in claiming that:

You seem to be vastly overvaluing the novelty of your predictions. "You need heavy weapons to prevail in a high intensity conflict" and "breaking through a prepared, tiered defense will be difficult" is not exactly ground breaking stuff. Such analysis was widely available for anyone who cares to look. — Echarmion

Which also gives me a chance to respond to this point in pointing out my whole argument was those things are obvious and so NATO's policy of not sending Ukraine heavy weapons was obviously designed so they can't actually go do what Zelensky promised, not even a chance; maybe hold the line, maybe take back a bit of territory, but not actually rout the Russians (which may have actually been possible in 2022 as Russia did not mobilize any forces for the operation and then delayed doing so a considerable amount of time ... of course they don't need to if we all agree with @Echarmion that it's completely obvious Ukraine could not possibly prevail with the commitment level from NATO in 2022).

As for the Nazi's, they are obviously there (go through the videos if you want to explain how there's no Nazi's in those videos) and they are an important player in the war co-creating many of the events.

@Echarmion claims Ukraine's just cause is obvious, requiring no evidence nor argumentation, and I simply point out (on a philosophy forum) that it's not so obvious: Ukraine is attacking separatists (shelling civilians, which does not seem to be in dispute, @Echarmion just says it's not enough to justify defending said civilians) and Ukraine has this Nazi problem, so arguing Ukraine has just cause is clearly not obvious, you'd need to contend with these two issues, of which the first issue @Echarmion already agreed was "thorny":

Separatism is a thorny issue at the best of times, and the Donbas separatists lack any convincing popular legitimacy. — Echarmion

Not only making a claim with zero evidence (while chastising others for not citing things that should be common knowledge to anyone interested in the subject, such as Ukraine's various rounds of mobilzation), but contradicting his claim that Ukraine's just cause is some epistemological status of "obvious" and requires no argumentation at all.

But clearly according to @Echarmion at minimum a just cause argument for Ukraine requires dealing with this "thorny issue at the best of times" ... which seems completely incompatible with the criteria of "obvious".

Now, my own position is that I don't really care who has just cause in the war, as my own country and the political block I'm apart of (the EU) rules out anyways sending soldiers to Ukraine and there's this whole drip feed of arms to simply prop up Ukraine, but I view as immoral if indeed Ukraine does have just cause. If Ukraine has some sort of categorical imperative just cause (that justifies fighting even without any theory of victory) we should send our own soldiers to help defend Ukraine, which we don't so it doesn't matter.

Therefore, if Ukraine has no hope of defeating the Russians, just cause or not, the best pathway is a negotiated settlement.

Not only have we made plenty of progress already in our discussion, but further dialogue with @Echarmion is interesting as it is revelatory of how easily and quickly people rewrite and edit history and just ignore anything inconvenient to them.

For example, we spent no small amount of comments discussing if Russia did make an offer to Ukraine of withdrawing in exchange for neutrality, recognizing Crimea, some protective status for Donbas. This was common knowledge discussed at length here and elsewhere that this offer was made. The main defence of Zelensky for rejecting the offer was that "couldn't be trusted", entire pages of discussion were dedicated to the meaning of "guarantee" in international agreements (that it is not "ontological" but rather ornamental, there is no way to be sure any international party will do what they guarantee and no body to force them, but that not a reason to reject international agreements, what matters is an estimation of the various forces at play going forward and if a party will be likely compelled to stick to the agreement for many reasons, one being the diplomatic cost of breaking a guarantee). Point is, plenty of discussion on Russia's offer and Zelensky rejecting it.

@Echarmion, having already agreed Ukraine's leverage was greater at the start of the war (though maybe not the maximum but greater than now), then simply refuses to believe even Reuters has a proper understanding of the offer, equivocating on the meaning of "ceasing military operations" and making the additional claim that position are secret anyways.

While we're discussing this, the lead negotiator of Ukraine does an interview where he confirms exactly what everyone understood at the time and more! Saying the only point of relevance was neutrality, everything else (such as Donbas status) just purely cosmetic and provided exactly the justification that I debated with Olivier5 for like a hundred comments, that "Russia couldn't be trusted" (no "guarantee" from Russia is an actual "guarantee").

Now, does @Echarmion apologize for the bad faith tactic of demanding proof of common knowledge?

No, and to that extent he refused dialogue as you say, but for me it is very enlightening into the psychology of adherents to the mainstream narrative when the cognitive dissonance starts.

Which is my new purpose here now that the opportune moments for a peace agreements are passed, and any deal is unlikely to be the result of sober moral deliberation considering the costs of war but because Ukrainian government collapses, so for me the main value of the discussion now is to delve into the psychology of war enthusiasm.

Anyways, if you are better at arguing than myself or @Echarmion feel free to argue any of the main points or then feel free to provide better points of debate of your own.

No, it's simply that the Kremlin simply didn't understand how things have changed from seven years ago.

In 2016 emigrants coming to Finland got the country into a severe political crisis. It looked ugly, like an American culture war. Now similar action as an hybrid attack had a totally different response. Actually the anti-immigration party, the "True Finns"-party, now (again) in the administration is totally OK with Ukrainian refugees, while it still has the anti-immigration position towards others (like migrant workers or economic refugees). As I stated earlier, the opposition social democrats came out with a proposal to give military aid Ukraine for every refugee that Russia sends here.

In fact, when Ukrainian families were started to be moved to another place (with days notice time) from the city of Oulu (where many had stayed as long as two years) to other places to take in the new "hybrid" refugees, the True Finns minister of interior intervened. She order for the Ukrainian families to get rental flats in Oulu.

This totally different kind of attitude towards especially Ukraine comes from a spectacular coincidence that the True Finns party leader actually had worked in Ukraine, knew the country and could speak totally fluent Ukrainian. He towed the populist party to a firm anti-Putin stance and made a separation to the pro-Putin populists in Europe (and the European Parliament). Hence Finland is quite committed to Ukraine and will never see it as an "forever war" that simply ought to be stopped even in favour of Putin.

Here the party leader Halla-aho speaking to the Ukrainian parliament in Ukrainian and getting a standing ovation from the Ukrainian members of Parliament. (Unfortunately the translation only in Finnish, which won't help others)


Basically now these hybrid attacks just strengthen Finnish resolve to aid Ukraine.

Echarmion claims Ukraine's just cause is obvious, requiring no evidence nor argumentation — boethius

I did supply an argument.

Not only making a claim with zero evidence — boethius

I did provide evidence, I even provided you with the specific evidence you asked for. After which you just dropped the topic completely.

hen simply refuses to believe even Reuters has a proper understanding of the offer, equivocating on the meaning of "ceasing military operations" — boethius

It's not equivocating that the plain meaning of the words "halt military operations" are just that: halt. Not withdraw. If you want to argue something that wasn't written was meant, you're the one who has to supply the argument for that.

While we're discussing this, the lead negotiator of Ukraine does an interview where he confirms exactly what everyone understood at the time and more! Saying the only point of relevance was neutrality — boethius

The lead negotiator of course also said that their impression was that the Russian delegation was trying to get them to agree to neutrality simply as a play for time. If you're going to invoke the witness, you're going to have to deal with all of his statements, not just some.

Also note that Arakhamia has made other statements about the peace negotiations, e.g. here, where he said that the initial position of the Russian side was to merel "formalise Ukraine's surrender".

Another quote from the article:

"We cleaned up all the nonsense about "denazification", "demilitarisation", the Russian language and so on. We noted there that Ukraine was not ready to join NATO in exchange for tough and clear security guarantees. A framework for the agreement was prepared.

But then the delegations simply could not move further. We say, guys, the issue of Crimea and Donbas is about territorial status. No one here is authorised to even talk about it. Let the presidents meet and decide where to go. We need a meeting between the leaders", said one of the sources on Bankova.

Which makes clear that Ukraine did agree in principle to neutrality (as it had before), just not neutrality without any kind of security.

And even had Ukraine agreed to neutrality without any qualification, the issues of Donbas and Crimea were unresolved. So, russain troops would likely not have vacated the Donbas or the land bridge to Crimea before agreement could have been reached. If they did, what negotiating position would Russia have?

No it's not. — Echarmion

For someone who is willing to demand evidence for common knowledge (such as Ukrainian mobilization being not remotely close to a majority volunteer basis), you should, and everyone else following, really pause to appreciate you're own argument method of just dropping contradictions without any evidence or argument at all.

Yes it is. Money laundering is the transfer of property in the commissioning of or then to move the proceeds of a crime. Having someone act as a front is fraud and a crime.

In transferring the asset's nominal owner, Zelensky is trying to obfuscate the real ownership and control of the asset, a crime in itself, and obviously for the purposes of further money laundering.

Obfuscating the real owner of an asset is a crime.

Now, if you want to argue it was "just a gift!" feel free just say that.

Obviously you don't. — Echarmion

Are you going to even bother to respond to Reuters reporting what is clearly a bribe:

The wife of Ukrainian president-elect Volodymyr Zelenskiy bought a luxury apartment for less than half the market rate from business tycoon Oleksandr Buryak, according to official income and property records. — Reuters

The above, along with the offshore assets and accounts, are absolutely cut and dry, perfectly clear, smoking gun, caught red handed, indisputable proof of corruption.

But feel free to provide at least some bullshit whitewashing of the issue.

When money laundering is exposed it clearly requires additional cleaning.

And this "moral hazard" is here supposed to stand in for evidence and an argument, but I don't accept such a transparent shifting of goalposts. — Echarmion

I said it's a de facto bribe, which is a kind of moral hazard (there are other kinds, but this is the name of the general phenomenon when).

In economics, a moral hazard is a situation where an economic actor has an incentive to increase its exposure to risk because it does not bear the full costs of that risk. — Moral hazard

In this case, the war represents significant economic risks to Ukrainian citizens: jobs, homes, infrastructure, savings, everything.

If you are able to profit from the war (due to NATO pumping in billions of dollars of money structured as an untraceable slush fund) and in a position of power to make or influence decisions, then you have an incentive to increase your exposure to war because you stand to benefit.

This adds to intrinsic moral hazard that elites can usually insulate themselves from the risk of fighting on the front line that essentially all wars have.

Now, if NATO didn't offer the funds structured as a slush fund and tried to remove the moral hazard, saying something along the lines of they're going to make sure the money is traceable if they're going to pump billions into Ukraine (something that as the funder you can easily demand) then it would not be a de facto bribe. But NATO has explicitly said they don't track what happens to funds or arms once they enter Ukraine, and they obviously knew that offering the funds in this way would be a significant moral hazard to Ukrainian decision makers forming a conflict of interest with their constituents (i.e. a bribe).

You did not provide any. I'm not about to go trawl the web to find some reference that might prove your point. — Echarmion

So if I post the evidence, you'll agree the claim should be presumed true?

Just piling on spurius logic onto bullshit claims. The aid is not "set up as a slush fund", since most of it is material in nature. "Zelensky is corrupt therefore money flowing to Ukraine is a bribe for Zelensky" is entirely non sequitur and a laughably bad attempt to make on a philosophy forum of all places. — Echarmion

Again just saying things that would be convenient for your position if they were true ... without even bothering to educate yourself a minimum on the issue.

If you go to the following page by the Council of Foreign Relations, you will be able to see for yourself how the aid breaks down.

They don't provide convenient totals, but the main support is the EU (82.7 billion financial aid and 2.4 billion humanitarian aid) and the US (46.6 billion in military aid, 26.4 billion in financial aid and 3.9 billion in humanitarian aid) and Germany (18.9 billion in military aid, 1.4 billion in financial aid and 2.7 billion in humanitarian aid).

The sub-totals of the top 3 donors are thus:
- 110.5 billion USD in financial aid
- 65.5 in military aid

The next top donor is the UK with evenly split aid and the others are so small the change will be negligible to the conclusion that most aid is financial.

Now, certainly some financial aid doesn't reach Ukraine, but the West has been clear that what enters Ukraine is not tracked. Obviously the arms can also be sold on the blackmarket so I don't see how that's anyways an argument against people standing to benefit from the war, creating a moral hazard (aka. bribe if things are structured intentionally this way, which they are).

You don't know that, and in any event your claim was that they "are not fighting voluntarily" which is different from being formally a volunteer. You can fight voluntarily as a draftee. — Echarmion

A draftee is by definition not a voluntary occupation, moreso if you are banned from even leaving the country. If you're argument is that "they volunteered in their hearts" ... I guess we'll have to wait until after the war.

You do not need supporting evidence for this.
— boethius

Oh I do. — Echarmion

Well apparently you need evidence that someone caught with offshore accounts and accepting a bribe through his wife deserves every possible suspension of belief when new allegations of corruption turn up. To myself and non-corrupt people you only get one chance to not-be-corrupt, and it doesn't really matter how much additional corruption you do. Maybe the yacht story will prove true, maybe not, maybe just forgotten in the annals of the internet, but we already have the offshore accounts from The Guardian and the bribe from Reuters; that's plenty of corruption for my taste, but if you want to eat more help yourself.

This is of course utter nonsense, but I realize you feel unable to deal with the actual argument and so make up your own. — Echarmion

What's the actual argument?

My argument is that tying dissatisfaction about the world directly to action that immediately satisfied the emotion that dissatisfaction causes, does not constitute a justification for said action.

"Ukrainians want to fight" is not a justification to reject Russia's offer and continue fighting, nor a justification to provide arms to Ukraine, and "Putin can't be trusted!" is even less of a justification to reject a peace offer. Likewise, "illegal invasion", "right to self defence!", "Putin is Imperialist", "fight them there rather than here!!" and so on are not justifications.

A justification would not only need to start with establishing Ukrainian just cause (actually demonstrate Ukraine's attack on the separatists is justified) but then need to further demonstrate that the course of action is worthwhile: aka. that Ukraine can make military gains that are worth the blood paid and that course of action is better than the alternatives.

Since the start of the war, we just get these sound bites as justification for things (for example "Putin can't be trusted! No guarantee can be trusted!" but winning the war isn't guaranteed either nor even continued NATO support: no option is guaranteed and so observing that fact does not justify one course of action over another), and this is what I call cry baby logic. If Ukraine cannot win (as in has an exceedingly low chance of winning), then it is not ethical to send men (and women now too apparently) to their deaths for a cause that has essentially no chance of succeeding.

There are other strategies available; saying one strategy is better than the other requires some actual analysis of the options available. If you simply skip the analysis from a complaint about the world to actions that satiate the emotions but nothing is thought through, this is literally baby logic.

And you say yourself that making negotiation positions public is dangerous, so obviously understand Zelensky's public repudiation of negotiations and public ultimatums and vowing to win back even Crimea is foolish and dangerous; what is the justification of such actions? It simply "felt good at the time". That's the only justification, literally a baby's justification for crying over a broken cookie if a baby could articulate their thought process.

I don't need to provide evidence for claims you make up. — Echarmion

You bring up the Ukrainian soldier wanting to fight as a rebuttal to my explaining how the cry-baby logic works: zero consideration to the costs to Ukraine of "fighting to win", 100% emotional convenience.

Your rebuttal doesn't work anyways, the "tough Azov guy" can be equally stuck in cry-baby fallacy if their understanding and motivations for the war are really as simplistic as the cry-baby logic. I only contradicted your point in itself (that Ukrainians on the front believe Zelensky's cry-baby justifications for the war) because I honestly give Ukrainians on the front more credit than you do. I'm pretty confident most Ukrainians understand most things Zelensky says is propaganda meant mostly for a Western audience.

But it remains your point, so if it's important you should therefore provide evidence that most Ukrainians on the front choose to be there voluntarily. You're the one assuming "Ukrainians on the front" in some general sense want to fight voluntarily. I don't think it's a fact and even if it was I don't see how that would justify anything.

Your rebuttal is basically not a rebuttal, you don't show how the argument for fighting (and sending more men and woman to their deaths) is a more sophisticated argument that "Russia can't be trusted!" or "self-defence!", so you just conjure up the tough soldier on the front as some sort of philosophical human shield and dare me to call a big brawny soldier a cry-baby.

Ok, you don't feel the need to provide any evidence that most soldiers fighting want to be there, but let's put that aside, assuming Ukraine cannot win is it justifiable to continue fighting? If Ukraine can win ... how?

If you want to rebut a claim, just thinking it's not true isn't enough. — Echarmion

I provided you the evidence that implies most Ukrainians on the front are not volunteers: the laws barring men from leaving Ukraine, and going from 250 000 soldiers to over 800 000 through mobilization.

Again, it's your claim that there's some "generalized Ukrainian" that fights on the front with the same simplistic cry-baby logic as you and your fellows here as well as Zelensky. I provide evidence that points to that not being the case compared to you providing literally zero evidence, then my evidence to rebut your unsubstantiated claim isn't good enough for you?

Wildly bad faith, but that's why I'm here (to interrogate how this bad faith and delusions work in practice) now that all the reasonable points of time for a negotiated settlement have passed.

Having someone act as a front is fraud and a crime. — boethius

It's not fraud. Maybe it's a crime in some jurisdictions but I'm not aware of any.

In transferring the asset's nominal owner, Zelensky is trying to obfuscate the real ownership and control of the asset, a crime in itself, and obviously for the purposes of further money laundering. — boethius

The crime and the laundering cannot be the same act. The whole talk about money laundering is just a very silly propaganda line that never made any sense.

Obfuscating the real owner of an asset is a crime. — boethius

Pretty sure shell companies etc. are legal in and of themselves.

The above, along with the offshore assets and accounts, are absolutely cut and dry, perfectly clear, smoking gun, caught red handed, indisputable proof of corruption. — boethius

Ok. But this doesn't just allow one to make any arbitrary claim about Zekensky's finances. "He's corrupt" isn't some fully general explanation for everything.

In this case, the war represents significant economic risks to Ukrainian citizens: jobs, homes, infrastructure, savings, everything. — boethius

This is true for all leaders. But unlike Zelensky, not all of them faced a very real threat of death.

and they obviously knew that offering the funds in this way would be a significant moral hazard to Ukrainian decision makers forming a conflict of interest with their constituents (i.e. a bribe). — boethius

Again you're simply equating moral hazard with a bribe and that just doesn't work. It's like saying not wearing a helmet is essentially a head injury.

So if I post the evidence, you'll agree the claim should be presumed true? — boethius

Then you'll have posted evidence and we'd have something to talk about.

They don't provide convenient totals, but the main support is the EU (82.7 billion financial aid and 2.4 billion humanitarian aid) and the US (46.6 billion in military aid, 26.4 billion in financial aid and 3.9 billion in humanitarian aid) and Germany (18.9 billion in military aid, 1.4 billion in financial aid and 2.7 billion in humanitarian aid).

The sub-totals of the top 3 donors are thus:
- 110.5 billion USD in financial aid
- 65.5 in military aid — boethius

The 80 billion from the EU apparently also include money made available for refugees. The EU itself only reports about 30 Billion in direct economic aid.

But I'm probably still wrong about "most" the aid being directly material. Which of course doesn't mean none of it is earmarked and just disappears into some slush fund.

A draftee is by definition not a voluntary occupation, moreso if you are banned from even leaving the country. If you're argument is that "they volunteered in their hearts" ... I guess we'll have to wait until after the war. — boethius

All the studies I have seen suggest that support for the war effort remains high.

Well apparently you need evidence that someone caught with offshore accounts and accepting a bribe through his wife deserves every possible suspension of belief when new allegations of corruption turn up. To myself and non-corrupt people you only get one chance to not-be-corrupt, and it doesn't really matter how much additional corruption you do — boethius

Then why bring it up? Ah yes because it's the hot new propaganda item.

Maybe the yacht story will prove true, maybe not, maybe just forgotten in the annals of the internet, — boethius

This is essentially admitting you dishonestly made a claim knowing you won't be able to defend it.

A justification would not only need to start with establishing Ukrainian just cause (actually demonstrate Ukraine's attack on the separatists is justified) — boethius

Russia attacked in 2022, not Ukraine.

but then need to further demonstrate that the course of action is worthwhile: aka. that Ukraine can make military gains that are worth the blood paid and that course of action is better than the alternatives. — boethius

It already has.

If Ukraine cannot win (as in has an exceedingly low chance of winning), then it is not ethical to send men (and women now too apparently) to their deaths for a cause that has essentially no chance of succeeding. — boethius

In the real world, winning and loosing isn't a binary. But again you're not even considering what Ukraine's interests may be so it's pointless to discuss this.

But it remains your point, so if it's important you should therefore provide evidence that most Ukrainians on the front choose to be there voluntarily. — boethius

Again I don't feel any need to play along with your bizarre versions of what I supposedly said. Just quote me or leave off.

If Ukraine can win ... how? — boethius

Ukraine has already achieved a number of their objectives by fighting. Whether they currently have something up their sleeve for gaining some significant territory or other advantage I don't know.

Again, it's your claim that there's some "generalized Ukrainian" that fights on the front with the same simplistic cry-baby logic as you and your fellows here as well as Zelensky. — boethius

No it's not.

But if you're interested in how Ukrainians view the war here is an interesting study from April specifically about people living close to the front. And here is a Gallup poll from October.

Unsurprisingly, people do actually care about the "cry baby logic" of who has the righteous cause and about defending their country.

I'll respond to tomorrow to the rest of your post, and also @neomac I have not forgotten your posts either so don't worry about further education.

However, since I will be focusing on this particular justification next, the "Ukrainians want fight" as both a justification for Ukrainians fighting as well as justification for our arming and financing Ukrainians entire war effort as well as a large part of the their civilian economy, and how this argument further cry-baby logic and cannot possibly stand to scrutiny (for example if you're Ukrainian is your justification to fight that Ukrainians want to fight?), but I wish for today to just foreshadow this next chapter in our little saga together with consideration of the actual poll.

But if you're interested in how Ukrainians view the war here is an interesting study from April specifically about people living close to the front. And here is a Gallup poll from October.

Unsurprisingly, people do actually care about the "cry baby logic" of who has the righteous cause and about defending their country. — Echarmion

First you and anyone reading this notice the goal posts moving from " some 'generalized Ukrainian' that fights on the front" to just Ukrainians in general.

But as for the poll itself, there is a whole science on how polls can be manipulated.

Even assuming everyone in Ukraine feels completely free to express themselves and let's also ignore the fact alternative views to the government have been criminalized and critical media and opposition parties banned.

Just consider the poll itself, the choice is:

Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war — Gallop poll

and

Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible — Gallop poll

The first question is manipulative as it presumes Ukraine can win not only does it add positive connotation but you can legitimately interpret the question as "assuming Ukraine will win the war, should Ukraine continue fighting until it wins?"

The second question is likewise manipulative as it adds "as soon as possible", even if you are in favour of a negotiated settlement to terminate the war you may not be in favour of "as soon as possible" which sounds like simply capitulating.

Not that Ukrainians (even with completely free and critical press and elections unbanned and legitimate non-manipulative polling questions) believing they should continue fighting would form a valid justification, but anyone interested in how the Western media deploys the cry-baby logic of "waaaah, stop asking for justifications and 'reasons' for things, Ukrainians want to fight!" it starts with a transparently manipulative poll to skew the results, in an environment where critical media is banned and skepticism about the war can get you killed, and also the government lying to their population regularly with constant fabricated propaganda (from ghost of Kiev to assuring people the Ukrainian military can and will win and casualties are low and so on).

:D , everyone having followed already knows (re-repeating, again), in fact, extremism is a problem all over (e.g. † below), yet, again,

Ukraine still isn't ruled by a Nazi regime; those claims are straight from the Kremlin's propaganda machine (don't echo them)
[...]
Apr 25, 2022 - Dec 20, 2022 - Aug 2, 2023 — Nov 28, 2023

... in fact, they've made progress (re-repeating), while their northern neighbor has regressed (re-rep...). The so-called deNazification of Ukraine is but another political tool borne of ulterior motives. A Nazi regime to join the EU? Nay, Kyiv just isn't that Nazi stronghold narrated by the Kremlin to be cleansed, get over it.

† I'll just stick to links ...

The US · WISN · Nov 18, 2023
Germany · Bloomberg · Nov 5, 2023
The US (military) · VICE · Oct 20, 2022
Russia (military) · VICE · Aug 22, 2022
The US / Online · NBC · Jan 8, 2021
France · France 24 · Oct 29, 2020
Sweden · euronews · Sep 30, 2017

The Ukrainians have proven willing to change for the better, but not to be overrun by Russia just like that (again); the Kremlin has proven unwilling to change for the better, and continue to landgrab and bomb others in the name of their authoritarianism. (By the way, shouldn't someone have freed Ukraine from military-political covert invaders like Girkin? Shouldn't someone de-genocide the Uyghurs? Shouldn't someone clean up the Kremlin?)

First you and anyone reading this notice the goal posts moving from " some 'generalized Ukrainian' that fights on the front" to just Ukrainians in general. — boethius

You're making stuff up again.

But as for the poll itself, there is a whole science on how polls can be manipulated. — boethius

Baseless speculation.

let's also ignore the fact alternative views to the government have been criminalized and critical media and opposition parties banned. — boethius

And some more lies.

The first question is manipulative as it presumes Ukraine can win — boethius

What laughable nonsense. That's not how language works.

The second question is likewise manipulative as it adds "as soon as possible", even if you are in favour of a negotiated settlement to terminate the war you may not be in favour of "as soon as possible" which sounds like simply capitulating. — boethius

Asking a narrow question instead of a broad one is not manipulation....

Not that Ukrainians (even with completely free and critical press and elections unbanned and legitimate non-manipulative polling questions) believing they should continue fighting would form a valid justification, but anyone interested in how the Western media deploys the cry-baby logic of "waaaah, stop asking for justifications and 'reasons' for things, Ukrainians want to fight!" it starts with a transparently manipulative poll to skew the results, in an environment where critical media is banned and skepticism about the war can get you killed, and also the government lying to their population regularly with constant fabricated propaganda (from ghost of Kiev to assuring people the Ukrainian military can and will win and casualties are low and so on). — boethius

This post of yours is transparently desperate bullshit and lies. Trying to somehow explain away the facts that are inconvenient to you by using a whole barrage of falsehood and fantasy.

You would have to back every single one of those claims up with evidence, but obviously you cannot.

Investigation of how putin started the war: